Would population become more or less centralized once profit motives disappear? On one hand...

Would population become more or less centralized once profit motives disappear? On one hand, there would be no reason for people to commute. On the other, local economies would eclipse economies of scale and megacorporations that can afford to be huge because they export everywhere would die out.

Barring a tankie brutalist hellworld, would you see more or less urbanization in a post capitalist world?

Attached: 1556339532308m.jpg (1024x505, 84.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Attached: it_depends.jpg (425x340, 34.36K)

Stfu you liberal anarcracker.

wealth centralisation becomes less,
centralisation of higher order democratic decision making increases


Attached: brutalism.jpg (2500x1667, 705.11K)

It will become more centralized, whether we move to socialism/communism or not. The percentage of the population that has to work in agriculture to feed the rest is still shrinking. When you produce something and go through several production steps, the amount of space you need to move the thing takes time and energy. You want production to happen in a configuration as compact as possible. Now think about all the people commuting from and to work.

What a silly question.


I hate this meme, USSR was COMFY, hellworld image you have in your head is ruins of it in capitalist Russia.

Probably less since no one wants to be that concentrated in one place

Is that a real quote? From what movie?

Under socialism suburbs would still exist, but the main forms of commuting would be trains (which would be free). Obviously rural areas would still be the same because mining and agriculture is nessicary for civilization. The world would probably be more Uraban, however their would be less pressure to move to Megacities, and smaller cities like Detroit would undergo a revival.

Its not realistic to plan a non-profit society until you have absolute abundance of material goods. As market economy develops through creative destruction goods will eventually become so cheap that they will appear free to the consumer. The only important aspect about economy until then is class contradiction that market socialism can easily fix by outlawing every form of enterprise except worker owned co-operatives.

With no profit motive the population would plummet in the face of famine and the eventual wars.

Better than capitalist sprawl hellworld

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1097x673 1.58 MB, 165.69K)

As long the apartments are soundproof and well insulated, I don't mind.

I think le sci-fi dystopia meme chested is out of cool megastructures and modernist architecture. I hope those fucks are happy they left us with a future of plywood and drywall.



When planning newer cities commies always left enough space for lawns and trees and shit, with trees growing as tall as commie blocks themselves. Nobody intended to build cement labyrinths and former commie cities are very green in summer. Or green until municipal budgets are so small they decide cutting the trees the fuck down is cheaper than constantly paying to prune them.

At the moment, most migration is because of employment. Some cities have no jobs, so people migrate to cities that have jobs. When we have full employment with socialism, there is much less incentive for these people to move.

I think trendy, arty, hipster, gentrified cities will become popular. Since employment and housing is guaranteed under socialism, people will want to live where it's "fun". On the other hand, those who want a rural lifestyle can have that too. People will live where they WANT to live, not just because the jobs are there.


I think soviets had a right idea with dachas.
Work in the city on weekdays, chill in the countryside on weekends.

No you have to equitably distribute the population to ease the antagonisms between town and country

The reason the commieblocks became shitty in the first place was due to Corn Man cutting down on expenses.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x667, 852.66K)